The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[swerve]

Sort of similar to how Russia drone strikes forced Ukraine to put manpower into drone-defence teams with HMGs and AAA. Germany was of course more vulnerable since they didn't have "neutral" countries providing them aid.

Yes, but the Germans were looting occupied territories & importing millions of workers from them, which helped to maintain production levels in Germany.

 

[Feanor]

Yes, but the Germans were looting occupied territories & importing millions of workers from them, which helped to maintain production levels in Germany.

The comparison is limited of course. In my opinion Ukraine is less vulnerable to disruptions in industrial production from Russian strikes because the Ukrainian military is less dependent on domestic production then the German one during WWII. Ukraine is more vulnerable to strikes against incoming weapon shipments, since weapons have to enter Ukraine through a known set of entry routes and Russia regularly strikes facilities associated (rightly or wrongly) with incoming military aid.

 

[swerve]

Monetary figures are almost meaningless. At the current exchange value of Euro/Dollar spent as aid, and actual military value, I would be skeptical of any plan short of $500 billion - $1 trillion range.
The US and EU provided nearly nominal $300 billion in aid to Ukraine, and possibly a similar number to Russia.
But where is this gargantuan Ukrainian arsenal?

As Europe debates the $200 billion loan, here's what Ukraine could buy with that money:

• 90,000 SHORAD interceptors.
• 10,000 LRAD/BMD interceptors.
• 10,000 heavy AFVs (MBTs, IFVs etc).
• 400 5th gen aircraft.
• 100 AH-64 helicopters.
• 1,000 SPH.

And still have $90 billion left.

Calculation:
SHORAD interceptor - $50k.
BMD interceptor - $700k.
Heavy AFV - $5 million.
5th gen aircraft - $100 million.
AH-64 - $50 million.
SPH - $4 million.

Some of these are actual current day prices, some are slightly reduced to account for economy of scale and current low production volumes, some are inflated just to reinforce my point.

I don't see even a fraction of that arsenal in Ukraine's hands, despite foreign donors claiming almost triple that amount in aid.

Goes to show just how unserious a lot of the debate on the topic is.

You've not been paying attention.

Firstly, a lot of the aid has been approved, but not yet spent. For example, as of 31 Dec 2024, the US congress had appropriated $182.8 billion. Deduct $2.7 bn which expired without being spent, $39.6bn appropriated, but not yet obligated (i.e. if it isn't "obligated" by a specific date it's cancelled). That leaves $140.4 bn which is, at least in theory, committed to Ukraine - of which $83.4bn had actually been spent.

Secondly, much of the money that has been spent is financial & humanitarian aid, which won't appear in Ukraine as weapons. EU aid has a bigger financial share than US aid. That money has been propping up Ukraine behind the front lines so that the soldiers get paid, fed, etc., hospitals get equipment, medicines, & so on, schools are kept running . . . As of last month, EU financial & humanitarian aid was $73 billion, not including billions on supporting Ukrainian refugees & billions in concessionary loans.

Thirdly, military aid includes such things as training, provision of spares, ammunition & so on, not just missiles, aircraft, AFVs & artillery. The Ukrainians have been burning through a lot of that.

So, even if your prices are right, which is highly debatable, the numbers would be a lot less than what you say.

 

[KipPotapych]

Then how do you explain Trump's concurrent massive reinforcement of EU via increased defense budgets?

I don’t think this requires much explanations as Trump (most explicitly of all others) has demanded for Europe to increase their defense budgets for a very long time. Including quite explicit threats of leaving NATO and not following through on the American obligations (under Article 5). And so on. I feel like I may be missing something in your question because this is probably the most clear part of the entire “game”.

I think a true pro-Russia approach would involve security guarantees for Europe and increased American deployments to the small baltics and along Russia's and Ukraine's de facto borders.

But the approach is not pro-Russian. In fact, I find it hard to take people seriously, regardless of their level of expertise, when they start talking about “pro-Russian” Trump, “Russian assets” about his entire administration and appointees, and so on. This is clearly not the case. However, many serious people claim it to be exactly that.

I also disagree about the American deployment in Ukraine. This is pretty much a categorical and a huge no from the Russians. I have little doubt that the war will continue until it is solidified in writing that there will be no US troops deployed in Ukraine and Ukriane will not be in NATO. I actually allow that Russia may agree on Euro troops, but it is a definite no for the American presence. This is a good chunk of the entire issue that they are trying to resolve and resolve it permanently (as far as the agreements allow).


To provide additional arguments for my view of things outlined in the previous post, here are some highlights from Kellogg earlier today:




To me, it is abundantly clear that not only they don’t care about what happens to Ukraine, they don’t see it as a relevant player, but a “mule” that needs to be “hit with a two by four” (two by four is just a piece of lumber used in basic construction, for those who are not accustomed to the language; the name comes from the measurements - 2 x 4 inches, with true measurement being 1.5 x 3.5 inches - and comes in various lengths, the most common being 8 feet long). Like I said a few days ago, whenever that was, they don’t see Ukraine as having any amount of weight in this world to have a loud voice.

And the reality is that this is how things work in the real world, not the imaginary world that some people live in. The stark difference in Trump’s approach is that usually these same things are discussed behind closed doors, in a “diplomatic” manner. But this is not the forte of the current administration.

PS if reading those highlights gives an impression, however remote, I didn’t write his speech and I doubt he read my past few posts on this forum. Laughing here.

 

[Fredled]

Putin showing willingness to start peace talks: 4 dead, 30 injured in Kryvih Rih + one dead in Sumy.
Last time Putin expressed peaceful intent, he fired ballistic missiles on Odessa.

I don't want to talk about Odessa

(On the same event as above)

Russia hit a hotel in Krivoy Rog. The city is a major logistics hub and this isn't the first hotel there that got hit.

Russians often target hotels where foreigners are staying.
(By the way: Thanks against for your report! )

Canada 'ready and able' to join Ukraine peacekeeping force.
Even if it's a small contingent, it's good news for Ukraine. The larger the coalition, the best.

Reportedly, Trump’s team is engaging with the Ukrainian opposition.

Poroshenko confirms meeting with Trump representatives.
Despite being repressed by Zelensky's dictatorship (LOL but true), he supports the main views of the Ukrainian government on the war, Europe and election, and confirms Zelensky as a legitimate president.
If Trump hoped that Poroshenko would make a more pro-Russian and anti-Zelensky candidate, it failed.

Peace Talks:

We're now in discussions to coordinate a meeting with the Ukrainians, next week with the Ukrainians in Saudi Arabia"

link
Will Zelensky be invited?

Europe's new Ariane 6 rocket successfully deployed a French spy satellite
How fast! Barely one day after Trump denied satellite imagery to Ukraine...

France's Eutelsat to replace Starlink in Ukraine: Stock surges 650%.

Russia hit a Ukrainian infantry unit in the open in a Dnepropetrovsk training area, total casualties are unclear, but Ukrainian official sources felt the need to address it, so it's not an insubstantial strike. Some commenters are claiming 50 KIA but this is completely unconfirmed. The strike was likely done with Tornado-S missiles. There are also unconfirmed reports of foreign instructors being present.

According to Ukrinform, 30 Ukrainian soldiers died and many were wounded. The dead toll could be closer to 50 if some of the wounded died in the meantime.
There was a severe breach in safety measures. Some head are going to roll at the training center.
They don't talk about foreign instructors but it would surprise no one if there were some.

Another bad news for Ukraine:
Russian missile strike killed dozens of soldiers and left scores wounded at a military training ground in Ukraine’s Dnipropetrovsk region

Toresk:

Many Russian sources are saying that the counter-attack at Toretsk is significant and doesn't appear to be some clever plan. Some are totally at a loss of sources. In general the boost in manpower coupled with the supplies Ukraine received relatively recently has given Ukraine the ability to push back on several sections of the front.

According to Heinrich Torsten, Ukrainians could (he always speaks at the conditional tense) have been there all the time. DeepState kept showing Toresk divided in grey and occupied zones while not providing evidence. Recent geolocation showing Ukrainian inside Toresk may suggest that the grey zone was accurate.
Once again: It could be.

Nato:

This means that Ukraine coming under NATO is more symbolic than practical. Ukraine can definitely standardize its armed forces on NATO standards, join international exercises, participate in strategic forums, and share knowledge and technology even without admission. This is always first and foremost a matter of will.

quote
True. More over, the quantity of weaponry given to Ukraine has turned Ukraine into the strongest NATO army after the US even before being accepted into the alliance.
This shows how ludicrous Putin's obsession with NATO is.

The EU, on the other hand, makes mandatory military assistance to any EU member being attacked. It means that when Ukraine will be in the EU, all EU states will have to intervene with military force if Russia tries to invade again even if they are not in NATO.
Because the EU has no army (the military is at national level), Putin thinks that it's powerless.

I think the argument is that he believes Europe should defend itself with some US aid. Europe should shoulder most of the burden.

It's an argument I also agree with. And if that's what the real goal, he succeeded beyond expectation and very quickly (at least if the €800B pledge for defence increase in the EU comes through).
But recently it's not "with some US aid" at all any more since he stopped military aid to Ukraine in the midst of the battle.

his is pretty much a categorical and a huge no from the Russians. I have little doubt that the war will continue until it is solidified in writing that there will be no US troops deployed in Ukraine and Ukriane will not be in NATO. I actually allow that Russia may agree on Euro troops, but it is a definite no for the American presence.

Putin already said no to French and UK troops. If the contingent is small enough that it pauses no threat to Russian's Special Operations, he may still agree, I think.

Like I said a few days ago, whenever that was, they don’t see Ukraine as having any amount of weight in this world to have a loud voice.

IMO Ukrainians should, and IMO, will sign whatever agreement Trump gives them, even if there is no defence guarantee and conditions are grotesque.
Two cases are possible:
1/ Trump honours his unwritten promise to provide military aid to Ukraine to win the war (in the event that Putin keeps on rejecting negotiations,). Then Ukraine wins, which is the ultimate goal for the Ukrainians.
Later, if Ukrainians are unable to honour their debt toward the US because the amounts are unrealistic, they can always negotiate a new deal with the next administration for something more reasonable.
2/ Trump doesn't provide any assistance at all and Ukraine lose more territories. Then after the war, Ukrainians just have to tell Americans to go to hell with their deal.

“hit with a two by four”

Thanks for the explanation. To be reused in future conversations. LOL

 

[swerve]

If you know how to spend even half of the total amount in 6 months, well, let's say you should be appointed NATO sec gen.
You can't just turn money into equipment...

I believe even 800 billions in 4 years are irrealistic.
Unless you convert to war economy, which is not the case.

That €800 bn is over more than 4 years. It's talking about €650 bn over 4 years, & it doesn't say that would mean €650 bn of stuff delivered in 4 years.

Some of the money being spent now is paying for increases in manufacturing capacity, & improving pay & conditions for troops so more can be recruited, to use the new equipment which will arrive later. Some countries are struggling to operate the equipment they have, because of personnel shortages.

 

[swerve]

...The EU, on the other hand, makes mandatory military assistance to any EU member being attacked. It means that when Ukraine will be in the EU, all EU states will have to intervene with military force if Russia tries to invade again even if they are not in NATO.
Because the EU has no army (the military is at national level), Putin thinks that it's powerless.
...

Nor does NATO have an army. Its members have national armies.

 

[rsemmes]

More over, the quantity of weaponry given to Ukraine has turned Ukraine into the strongest NATO

By that, do you mean in "quantity"? Number of what exactly? Do you count nukes too?

 

[seaspear]

This video shows increased use of horses by Russia in moving to the front even footage of a camel Im not sure if an actual cavalry charge has been tried yet , and the thinking behind using horses could be to save armoured vehicles?

 

[kato]

That €800 bn is over more than 4 years. It's talking about €650 bn over 4 years, & it doesn't say that would mean €650 bn of stuff delivered in 4 years.

Some of the money being spent now is paying for increases in manufacturing capacity, & improving pay & conditions for troops so more can be recruited, to use the new equipment which will arrive later. Some countries are struggling to operate the equipment they have, because of personnel shortages.

The 650 billion is just an amalgation of what increases in defence spending and special funds for defence the member states are planning for the next 4 years.
Debt ceiling requirements would have been (continued to be) violated by a number of members in pursueing that, so the decision is to remove this particular expenditure from the debt ceiling and thus "allow" it.

 

[KipPotapych]

Russia does not view EU as a credible threat without the US. The US is the problem for them. Pretty sure I made a post on the subject not that long ago. Which is why they are currently pretty happy with Trump’s shenanigans regarding NATO, overall trust, etc. It’s like a gift that keeps on giving.


As was already mentioned, Poroshenko stated today that they (he and his party) are against holding elections before the end of the war (or at least lasting ceasefire). He would be insane to state otherwise though and lose the little credibility he has left. I do not believe Timoshenko or Batkivshchyna party made any statements, not that I saw. Zaluzhny went another way and delivered a “boom” in his speech, saying that Trump is destroying the world order and trashing him otherwise.

Trump’s US destroying world order, says Ukraine’s UK ambassador

Valery Zaluzhny said the White House was making ‘steps towards the Kremlin’ — but the Ukrainian government distanced itself from his remarks.

www.politico.eu

These guys just can’t give themselves a break, lol.

The thing here is that he and many Euro politicians are talking about this world order that Trump administration clearly doesn’t believe any longer exists. As per Rubio, not only that world is order “obsolete, but it is now a weapon that is being used” against the USA.

Post-war global order ‘obsolete, weapon being used against us’, warns US Secretary of State

Freshly confirmed US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has issued a fiery warning for America’s allies: the post-war global order is “not just obsolete; it is now a weapon being used against us”, heralding a major shift as the US confronts multiple great powers, requiring a seismic shift for allies...

www.defenceconnect.com.au

So it appears that all these “world order” talks may be old men yelling at clouds, so to speak. It may have very little relevance in the current environment and these old (and otherwise) men (and otherwise) are not even on the same page with the people formulating the American foreign policy today. To note here, after the first Trump’s presidency, there was no tectonic shift in the foreign policy he had set, but the approach was somewhat different. I also do not hear many Democrats loudly screaming nowadays as they did through out his first term. This is likely a fundamental shift in the American foreign policy goals that is here to stay. Everyone should catch on while they can still see the train leaving. Note that I am not suggesting that any future administration will follow the rhetoric of noncommitment to NATO (and I believe that this only rhetoric from Trump as well), but the direction will remain. I would even go as far as to suggest that Trump wreaking havoc could be somewhat preferable to both parties as no one has to deal with it in the usual “diplomatic” manner - that is, breaking something to be rebuilt later on the preferable and desired terms. Discussion for a different thread though.


I saw over the past two days people suggesting that Ukrainians have their own capabilities and won’t hurt as much from the loss of the American intel. This is definitely not the case. The hurt will be more than these people expect. While the Ukrainian capabilities have certainly increased, they are no where near what the USA has to offer. Like I said earlier, some of the things are simply irreplaceable. Surely, long term, perhaps, who knows how long. Ukriane doesn’t have that time. Mike Kofman, without going to going into details, seems to think so as well:



I saw that France had “stepped up” and committed to providing their intel to substitute. This is clearly a joke because a) they have probably been providing it all this time (when they had something add?) and b) the kind of intel that was contradicting the Americans and Brits about the Russian intent to actually proceed with the invasion hours before it happened. Symbolism and all, but reality is reality. I guess one can add a c) “for giggles” where they couldn't even permit the use of their own missiles (along with the Brits) because they depend on the American data in order to launch them.


I also want to address something like this:



There are a few things at play here. One is quite obvious and has been made clear by the current and (more ambiguously, but still clear) previous US administrations: they are not interested in providing these guarantees to Ukraine. And that is not at all unreasonable.

Two is that it isn’t obvious that if these guarantees were to be offered, Ukraine would immediately accept the offer because their preconditions for a ceasefire include other things as well that are, perhaps, even less likely to happen.

Three is these guarantees that are being mulled over are concerned with the next hypothetical invasion. We aren’t quite done with this one just yet. So if the hostilities are to resume shortly after or long after the freeze, these guarantees are completely meaningless.

Four is, of course, the Russian position that is pretty clear: they are not interested in any type of extended freezing, but a clear permanent resolution. So saying that it would become obvious that the obstacle is Putin is not appropriate because it is quite clear right now that the proposal is not acceptable to Russia. Which is really the key point in the whole debate. It is rather silly to state (and the guy is not of the silly type) to say that it is obvious who the obstacle is while proposing something that is knowingly not acceptable to that very party. We can say that White House should propose Ukriane surrendering the territory on the right bank of Dnipro to Russia and then it will be obvious who the obstacle is. This is not a reasonable discussion and I see many people suggesting that it is and many of them are not dummies (the guy whose post I cited above surely isn’t).

Five, no one seems to be discussing the guarantees that Russia would be looking for here, which makes the entire debate quite meaningless in a way. This is just the reality that has to be accounted for in serious talks about ending this war.

I won’t continue, though there are more things that could be pointed out. I will only add that Trump last week said (during the circus) that the guarantees were still being considered. Perhaps, they were considered before shit hit the fan on Friday. Perhaps, they never were. Maybe they are considered still. I would bet on the “not considered” option, but I could very well be wrong. I am referring to the guarantees from the United States of America, of course. The best guarantees Ukriane can count on from the US is the American workers mining copper or something else from the Ukrainian substrate and that is no guarantee at all. The more I think about this “rare earth deal”, the more it appears to be a ruse, an easy way out. Perhaps, Zelensky threw a bone to see if there are any takers, the USA in particular, and Trump took his bluff and said this is what it is worth putting Zelensky in the corner that he himself created. Who the hell knows - it makes zero sense otherwise; or at least I cannot think of anything valuable there. It is definitely consistent with the Ukrainian approach through out, epic headlines with little substance. It should be noted that I also keep catching myself with the thought that Trump is simply a clown and has no clue what he is doing, so there is a lot of overthinking involved, while the reality is a complete and utter incompetence of the guy in charge, who had been put into this highest position by people with even less clue for the most part. Go figure.


One last thing for this post. Situation in Kursk is surely becoming very serious for Ukraine.



That is Deepstate’s map. To me it looks like if they do not (cannot?) do something to fix it, the Kursk incursion is coming to an end.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

I don’t think this requires much explanations as Trump (most explicitly of all others) has demanded for Europe to increase their defense budgets for a very long time. Including quite explicit threats of leaving NATO and not following through on the American obligations (under Article 5). And so on. I feel like I may be missing something in your question because this is probably the most clear part of the entire “game”.

Trump demanding Europe rearm and fulfill NATO obligations is quite literally the best move that could strengthen Ukraine, and it contributes to the greater west-axis war while European disarmament and American aid increase would also help Ukraine vs Russia but weaken the west, which could later lead to a renewed threat on the frontier nations and reversal of victory objectives in the Ukraine-Russia war.
This doesn't align well with "not caring for Ukraine". His policy is net better for Ukraine than arming it on his own.

But the approach is not pro-Russian. In fact, I find it hard to take people seriously, regardless of their level of expertise, when they start talking about “pro-Russian” Trump, “Russian assets” about his entire administration and appointees, and so on. This is clearly not the case. However, many serious people claim it to be exactly that.

Exactly. I think Trump represents a hawkish approach to Russia.

also disagree about the American deployment in Ukraine. This is pretty much a categorical and a huge no from the Russians. I have little doubt that the war will continue until it is solidified in writing that there will be no US troops deployed in Ukraine and Ukriane will not be in NATO. I actually allow that Russia may agree on Euro troops, but it is a definite no for the American presence. This is a good chunk of the entire issue that they are trying to resolve and resolve it permanently (as far as the agreements allow).

Russia isn't the one to be asking that. Negotiations move with the reality on the ground. If Europe deploys troops to Ukraine and closes its skies, it would put Ukraine in a much better negotiating position.

To me, it is abundantly clear that not only they don’t care about what happens to Ukraine, they don’t see it as a relevant player, but a “mule” that needs to be “hit with a two by four” (two by four is just a piece of lumber used in basic construction, for those who are not accustomed to the language; the name comes from the measurements - 2 x 4 inches, with true measurement being 1.5 x 3.5 inches - and comes in various lengths, the most common being 8 feet long). Like I said a few days ago, whenever that was, they don’t see Ukraine as having any amount of weight in this world to have a loud voice.

And the reality is that this is how things work in the real world, not the imaginary world that some people live in. The stark difference in Trump’s approach is that usually these same things are discussed behind closed doors, in a “diplomatic” manner. But this is not the forte of the current administration.

Demanding US allies pay for their own defense is a reasonable demand and is more "harsh love" than lack of care.

 

[swerve]

Trump demanding Europe rearm and fulfill NATO obligations ....

As of 2024, NATO Europe, as a whole, is meeting NATO guidelines on defence spending. Not obligations - that's a common mistake, but there's no excuse for it here, as it's been corrected here very often. Some countries (from worst to best, Spain, Slovenia, Luxembourg, Belgium, Italy, Portugal & Croatia) are still below 2%, but they're increasing, mostly rather fast.

So, "demanding Europe rearm and fulfill NATO obligations" is (1) nonsense, because there is no obligation, & (2) demanding that Europe start doing what it's already doing, which is rather silly.

One problem with increasing spending is the industrial base. The waiting times for some weapons is crazy: years, for new missiles from the USA! When Denmark gave all its new CAESARs (155mm SP guns) to Ukraine, the final determinant of what it bought to replace them was delivery time. There was plenty of choice of guns which met the requirement, but they all had waits for delivery, & some were very long, despite manufacturers increasing production quickly. So, Denmark ended up buying guns that aren't ideal, & they're still going to be late. And the supplier is neither European nor NATO: it's Israel.

 

[kato]

I do not believe Timoshenko or Batkivshchyna party made any statements, not that I saw.

Timoschenko pretty much mirrored Poroshenko, but she's been doing so for a while already. Two weeks ago she called holding elections during the war "immoral".

 

[kato]

Some countries (from worst to best, Spain, Slovenia, Luxembourg, Belgium, Italy, Portugal & Croatia) are still below 2%, but they're increasing, mostly rather fast.

NATO Europe as a whole was at 1.99% for 2024 due to those few countries.

Spain is the primary "underspender" of relevant size among those, although partially that is because their GDP growth is comparably high. Considering their defense budget in absolute numbers has increased by 66% since 2020 (similar to e.g. Germany with its special expenditure fund included) it's not like they aren't taking steps there.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

As of 2024, NATO Europe, as a whole, is meeting NATO guidelines on defence spending. Not obligations - that's a common mistake, but there's no excuse for it here, as it's been corrected here very often. Some countries (from worst to best, Spain, Slovenia, Luxembourg, Belgium, Italy, Portugal & Croatia) are still below 2%, but they're increasing, mostly rather fast.

So, "demanding Europe rearm and fulfill NATO obligations" is (1) nonsense, because there is no obligation,

You're arguing technicalities over substance. Yes, there are no obligations to spend any set amount on defense. But NATO at its core is a mutual defense treaty and one cannot fulfill the task of mutual defense if their armed forces are too small. The majority of NATO members not only have lost the ability to reinforce allies, but rely too deeply on their eastern neighbors' territory to serve as strategic depth that they no longer have the proper means to defend themselves independently otherwise.

All listed nations are not only not increasing fast, but are intentionally putting roadblocks for themselves and others in the path to rearmament. Sorry but getting another 0.5% over a decade is not an increase. And it isn't fast.

& (2) demanding that Europe start doing what it's already doing, which is rather silly.

Europe is not doing what it's meant to be doing. It should have secured Ukraine's skies within 1-2 days, assured Kyiv's survival within the first 1-2 weeks, stabilized Ukraine and frozen the front within 1-2 months, facilitated a return of territories within 6 months, secured Ukrainian local supremacy over Russia within 2 years, and set Ukraine on a deep modernization path.
That would secure the Russia frontier.
Considering that Russia is just 1 out of 3 main members of the Axis (along with China and Iran), and the EU being half the western power, what the EU should be doing is securing Europe on one hand, and assisting the US against the other axis members.
In the meantime Israel largely dealt with Iran on its own, despite European resistance, so Europe really has no excuse here.

I have little doubt that if and when China invades Taiwan, European leaders will once again take China's side or apply bothsideism, while accusing the US of treason.

One problem with increasing spending is the industrial base.

Just build new factories. It really doesn't take too long. What, need 3 years to create a new missile factory? By my calculations that means it's supposed to be ready in 2017, which would give us 8 years of increased missile supply.
Factories that would take over a decade to set up would also come online right about now.
Hire more workers to work 24/7 if needed.

The waiting times for some weapons is crazy: years, for new missiles from the USA!

Then build locally.

So, Denmark ended up buying guns that aren't ideal, & they're still going to be late. And the supplier is neither European nor NATO: it's Israel.

Tiny warring Israel supplies giant peaceful Europe? Cry me a river. Israel took its defense seriously and won. Europe didn't, and lost.
If Denmark started buying howitzers when Ukraine was invaded, it could supply a hundred to Ukraine and retain a hundred for itself by 2022.

 

[John Fedup]

As of 2024, NATO Europe, as a whole, is meeting NATO guidelines on defence spending. Not obligations - that's a common mistake, but there's no excuse for it here, as it's been corrected here very often. Some countries (from worst to best, Spain, Slovenia, Luxembourg, Belgium, Italy, Portugal & Croatia) are still below 2%, but they're increasing, mostly rather fast.

So, "demanding Europe rearm and fulfill NATO obligations" is (1) nonsense, because there is no obligation, & (2) demanding that Europe start doing what it's already doing, which is rather silly.

One problem with increasing spending is the industrial base. The waiting times for some weapons is crazy: years, for new missiles from the USA! When Denmark gave all its new CAESARs (155mm SP guns) to Ukraine, the final determinant of what it bought to replace them was delivery time. There was plenty of choice of guns which met the requirement, but they all had waits for delivery, & some were very long, despite manufacturers increasing production quickly. So, Denmark ended up buying guns that aren't ideal, & they're still going to be late. And the supplier is neither European nor NATO: it's Israel.

Wasn't SK considered for new guns by Denmark?

 

[rsemmes]

Production, factories...

Anyone has been able to read anything about actual "boots"? The possibility of reintroducing conscription... That was it.
Three months of basic training are not going to provide that "quality edge". How many new brigades? How long are going to be the contracts for those new soldiers? The costs of that bigger army is going to eat half of those billions?
I cannot see that many college students joining for "the experience".

 

[Feanor]

Trump demanding Europe rearm and fulfill NATO obligations is quite literally the best move that could strengthen Ukraine, and it contributes to the greater west-axis war while European disarmament and American aid increase would also help Ukraine vs Russia but weaken the west, which could later lead to a renewed threat on the frontier nations and reversal of victory objectives in the Ukraine-Russia war.
This doesn't align well with "not caring for Ukraine". His policy is net better for Ukraine than arming it on his own.


Exactly. I think Trump represents a hawkish approach to Russia.

How so? What specific steps has he taken towards Russia that are hawkish? You keep looking at effect and assuming intent, but that's not a credible way to analyze this situation. Actions have multiple consequences. Trump wants to reduce US support to Europe and is using the demand for greater defense spending on Europe's part as a lever to push in that direction. But is his intent to have Europe better defended? Or is his intent to minimize US commitments there? His policy could very well be a net better for Ukraine, but is that his intention or is that a by-product?

And by the way, I'm not sold that this will be a better policy for Ukraine in the end. It might be, but it also might not be. European re-armament is a medium-term goal, but the war in Ukraine is going on now and the lack of US aid will be felt now, not in the medium term (well also in the medium term assuming it continues). And there's the question of what his actual intentions are. If he intents to have Europe defend itself but also intends to sell Ukraine to Russia, then that's hardly a net better for Ukraine.

Russia isn't the one to be asking that. Negotiations move with the reality on the ground. If Europe deploys troops to Ukraine and closes its skies, it would put Ukraine in a much better negotiating position.

Assuming that it stops there. But if Europe deploys troops to Ukraine, attempts to close its skies, and gets nuked in the process, I don't think Ukraine will be better off, since it's Ukrainian territory that's likely to get nuked.

Demanding US allies pay for their own defense is a reasonable demand and is more "harsh love" than lack of care.

It's not love or lack of care in and of itself. It's just a desire to reduce US commitment there. But consider the rest of his behavior. Look at the entire picture. Does it look like he has "harsh love" for Europe?

You're arguing technicalities over substance. Yes, there are no obligations to spend any set amount on defense. But NATO at its core is a mutual defense treaty and one cannot fulfill the task of mutual defense if their armed forces are too small. The majority of NATO members not only have lost the ability to reinforce allies, but rely too deeply on their eastern neighbors' territory to serve as strategic depth that they no longer have the proper means to defend themselves independently otherwise.

All listed nations are not only not increasing fast, but are intentionally putting roadblocks for themselves and others in the path to rearmament. Sorry but getting another 0.5% over a decade is not an increase. And it isn't fast.

What is too small and isn't too small is a question of what they believe the threats are. And the whole point of NATO as far as I can see is that you don't have to defend yourself independently. You have allies.

Europe is not doing what it's meant to be doing. It should have secured Ukraine's skies within 1-2 days, assured Kyiv's survival within the first 1-2 weeks, stabilized Ukraine and frozen the front within 1-2 months, facilitated a return of territories within 6 months, secured Ukrainian local supremacy over Russia within 2 years, and set Ukraine on a deep modernization path.
That would secure the Russia frontier.
Considering that Russia is just 1 out of 3 main members of the Axis (along with China and Iran), and the EU being half the western power, what the EU should be doing is securing Europe on one hand, and assisting the US against the other axis members.
In the meantime Israel largely dealt with Iran on its own, despite European resistance, so Europe really has no excuse here.

Your view of this "axis" doesn't seem to be shared by much (most?) of the world, and it seems to be a clever way to try and lump Israel, a country with questionable foreign policy, in with the US and Europe. Does Europe see Israel as an ally? Do they see the war in Ukraine as part of a larger conflict? Or do they have a different assessment? Was Europe ready to secure Ukrainian skies within 1-2 days? What was the posture of European forces? Politically how does such a decision get made? Remember Europe isn't a country. It's a continent. The EU and NATO are organizations made up of sovereign states. You might consider Hungary's position reprehensible, but it doesn't change the fact that you can't force them to join in, or provide their airspace, for this sort of fight. And while Hungary is easy to smear as pro-Russian, what about Poland? They're not eager to deploy to Ukraine as peacekeepers. Would they have been ready and willing to go into a shooting war with Russia in '22? You've talked about Polish re-armament before, I'm assuming you follow it. What was the state of their re-armament in '22? What was the state of their airforce, especially vis-a-vis readines rates?

Let me make my position clear, in case it doesn't come across. I don't think the EU nations see the conflict in the same global terms you do. I don't see it in those terms either. I don't believe they want to go to war with Russia, and I don't believe they are prepared to. There are some more, as you would put it, "hawkish" stances from Britain and France, but you'll notice they're also the furthest away from Russia. Nuking Warsaw doesn't require anything complex, just a generous handful of Iskanders tossed across the Belarussian border. Nuking Paris is much harder. What the EU nations want is for Russia to fail in their effort in Ukraine, and for some sort of reasonable (by EU standards) post-war arrangement to be arrived at. What they don't want is to have to mobilize to fight another large European war. This is why their strategy has been to supply Ukraine with what can be provided without having to get too bent out of shape and let Ukraine bleed to weaken Russia, which is exactly what has happened. The EU strategy here has mostly worked, Russia doesn't have the kinds of supplies they once did, they've taken substantial losses, and their current "maximalist" position involves getting 5 Ukrainian regions, of which they controlled ~2 at the start of the war, and getting Ukrainian neutrality re-instated. In other words this approach has moved Russia's goal posts very far from where they started, and they're still not poised to achieve success, at least not for quite some time.

I have little doubt that if and when China invades Taiwan, European leaders will once again take China's side or apply bothsideism, while accusing the US of treason.

Well if you know that, then what is this "axis" non-sense you're talking about? Politics are goal-oriented. One of Europe's goals is to not get dragged into a major war.

Just build new factories. It really doesn't take too long. What, need 3 years to create a new missile factory? By my calculations that means it's supposed to be ready in 2017, which would give us 8 years of increased missile supply.
Factories that would take over a decade to set up would also come online right about now.
Hire more workers to work 24/7 if needed.

Hindsight sure is 20/20. Except unlike the bold claims I don't believe they really used Minsk Accords as a clever way to buy Ukraine time. I think Europe really did hope that they would work out, and things could back to a relative normality. So they certainly weren't mobilizing their domestic industries in 2014. They didn't even want to mobilize in 2022.

Tiny warring Israel supplies giant peaceful Europe? Cry me a river. Israel took its defense seriously and won. Europe didn't, and lost.
If Denmark started buying howitzers when Ukraine was invaded, it could supply a hundred to Ukraine and retain a hundred for itself by 2022.

Yes of course. Tiny Israel boldly supplies *checks notes* 19 howitzers. Very impressive.

I think you're intentionally missing the point. Denmark bought what was available due to global production bottlenecks. Not because Israel is such a MIC powerhouse but because it so happened that this batch of cannons was available.

 

[vikingatespam]

Trump demanding Europe rearm and fulfill NATO obligations ....

Demanding US allies pay for their own defense is a reasonable demand and is more "harsh love" than lack of care.

This is my view on the political circus we have seen in the last few months. Ultimately, this goes back to the Trump 2018 railing on NATO member for not spending the agreed upon 2%.

Dangerously close to Hopium, but we shall see.